Text 10590, 215 rader
Skriven 2007-01-23 19:36:10 av Vorlonagent (14025.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: My Presidential Pick for 2006
=========================================

"Matthew Vincent" <mbvincent@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:1169456179.172107.239380@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

> As for why there's a certain degree of prejudice and discomfort
> around the issue of homosexuality in the US, I think one thing to
> remember is that this has been the case historically across Western
> countries but that it's improving as time goes by. It is perhaps
> improving a little less rapidly in the US than it is in some other
> Western countries, and I can think of two factors which may be playing
> a part in this. These two factors are likely related to each other as
> well. One factor is the Cold War and McCarthyism, which has increased
> the degree of conservative Christianity in the US. The other factor is
> that the US is the most powerful country in the world militarily
> speaking, and this may affect the psyche of some heterosexual men (*)
> in the US, as well as leading to a degree of resistance against the
> general pattern of liberalisation in Western countries.

You might have just said, "prejudice" and saved yourself much writing.

A lot of your prose (such as the IBM/Hollerith factoid) aren't relevant to
the topic unless you are equating the plight ofhomosexuals in the 2007 US 
with
that of homosexuals, jews and gypsies in Nazi Germany (or in that particular 
case
suggesting some form of US complicity in the Holocaust).  Such an equating
would also equate the US of 2007 to Nazi Germany which would be
over-the-top, completely unsupportable and would likely run afoul of
Goodwin's Law to boot.

My best friend circa 2001 (who was gay) was so dismayed and paranoid about
Bush winning the Presidency in 2000 he was sure, dead-serious-SURE that
concentration camps for gays were just around the corner.  Nothing of the
sort has happened.  Yet this kind of Republican = Nazi prejudice is very
common on the left.

I agree that there is discomfort with and even some prejudice against gays
abroad in american culture.  What I can't understand is why the gay
presentation of itself PLAYS to those stereotypes rather than seeks to
dispel them.  Gay Pride parades, are concentrated doses of all manner of
sexual fetishism and/or make very harsh political statements.  The gay
attempts to force their participation into St Patrick's Day parades also
comes to mind.  The classic form of harsh gay activism would be the outing
of prominint individuals in the 90's.  Add the ultra-effeminent flaming-gay 
stereotype from the media and that's about all an average american knows 
about gays.  None of these images describe your average gay and get in the 
way of her/his acceptance into society.

My goal in this area of life is, I think, pretty close to yours.  I would
like to see a world where gayness is accepted enough that two straight guys
can use "married couple" as an alias.  (RE Franklin and Marcus).  We differ
on that matter of gay self-presentation.  To me, the conduct of gays and
their political activists works *against* this acceptance and not for it.

Blacks and women have had much better results simply asking why a certain
superficial set of traits should determine their job status and asking to be
treated with respect.  Indeed, the presence of blacks and women on the
*Republican* side of the fence is the best evidence for their (blacks' and
women's) great degree of success in becoming accepted into all areas of US
life.  I see gays reinforcing the very prejudices that alienate them.  It
is as if it's not enough to be accepted but that acceptance must be forced
onto american society.  There's some kind of fight being picked here.

> (*) It may affect the psyche of some women too, but this is a more
> complex matter.

I don't believe the Cold War or the US's subsequent status as the only
superpower on the planet has any direct bearing on the gay question.  There
may be some indirect interaction.  Meaning for example, the rigors of being 
the country to stand against communism may have had fallout that slows 
acceptance and europe being spared that rigor, finds it easier.  That would 
be an indirect effect.  I do not remember gayness as being conflated with 
communism, which would be a direct effect.

Question: If McCarthyism did so much for conservative christianity, why did 
it take almost 30 years after McCarthy's fall for conservative christians to 
find a political voice?  Same question RE the Cold War.  The Cold War had 
been going for nearly two generations before the Religious Right appeared on 
the scene.


> Since the time of the Enlightenment and the Founding Fathers, there has
> been a steady process of technological development in Western
> countries. Not all aspects of the relationship between technological
> advancement and social liberalisation are entirely clear, but the two
> do seem to be supported by each other. The US has been a little behind
> other Western countries in the last 50 years or so, and this is evident
> in other areas besides attitudes towards homosexuality - for example,
> the US still has the death penalty in some states whereas most other
> Western countries consider it primitive and barbaric.

...but the US is a leader over Europe in many areas of technology.  Should
not liberal europe lead the US in technology or the US's technology broker 
greater liberalism in the US than Europe?  Technology may enable liberalism, 
but liberalism does not necessarily enable technology.  Capitalism enables 
technology.  If France and Germany are any judge, liberalism inhibits 
capitalism.

I further take issue with your use of "behind".  It implies that there is
only one, true philosophy toward which a technological civilization must
evolve and the liberal philosohpy embodies this in all ways.  I disagree. 
The US's approach is different to be sure, but not necessarily falling short 
of some lofty ideal.  But then, I'm not one to look to Europe as a model to 
emulate.

Liberalism has proven singularly unable to grapple with aggression.  Europe
has taken the lead in the effort to try to halt Iran's nuclear ambitions and
the results have been pathetic.  No matter what the politicians and 
diplomats say, the threat of force is off the table and Iran knows it, which 
means the most Europe is going to do is write Iran a letter saying how upset 
they are (nod to "Team America" and the Hans Blix scene).  I expect little 
from the weak sanctions currently in place.

Europe has a bad record when it comes upholding sanctions when it was not
utterly convienent.  Before the 2003 US invasion, France, Germany and Russia 
ignored the sanctions against Iraq, trading equipment for oil.  Some of 
those trades included "dual use" equipment could be used in the production 
of bological or nuclear weapons.  Then there's the oil for food scandal as 
well.  If there's a euro to be made, the odds are very high that Europe will 
pay lip service to sanctions against Iran and undercut them.  Who do you 
think sold Iran their uranium-refining centrifuges to begin with?

The only place where liberalism seems to develop a spine is when dealing
with rival philosophies within its established sphere.  Conservatism and
capitalism are liberalism's favorite targets of demonization because they
are rivals to liberalism's power in countries where it holds sway.  Never
mind that radical Islam is far more reactionary toward every tenet that
liberalism holds.  Women are little more than property, gays are pariahs,
religion isn't wed to the state, it replaces the state.  Yet because radical
Islam and domestic conservatism are at odds, liberalism is more likely to
express concern and support for the islamics.

Not that Europe treats its islamic minorities particularly well.  In most
parts of europe muslims live in areas set apart from the local population.
The word for this is "ghetto".  You will rememebr how France struggled with 
islamics setting fire to cars and such.  The islamic ghettos outside Paris 
are dirt-poor and rampant with unemployment, breeding the frustration we saw 
on the news.  The US, for all its backward-ness has no ghettos.  Islamics 
mix freely with the rest of us. They're free to carve out a life for 
themselves like the rest of us.  When I'm out riding my bike, I pass Sikhs 
in tirbans and women in birkas along with whites, hispanics and blacks.

This isn't merely a product of technology, it's a by-product of the Cold
War. Europe did not have to spend the money or maintain the vigilance
required to defend itself from the Eastern Bloc.  They had the luxury of
having the Americans do it for them.  Europe could indulge in
cradle-to-grave socialism (and the attitudes that undergird it) because they
could afford a minimal military.

Since then, reality has delivered a rude awakeneing.  France and Germany
face economies that grow minimally or are completely flatlined.  Socialism
has sucked the dynamism out of Europe and Europe is going to have to cut
benefits or face bankrupcy. The scandanavian countries are doing better than
western europe.  Perhaps socialism works better on a smaller scale or
perhaps the scandanavian people don't demand as much from the government.


> Another pitfall is that advanced weapons may fall into
> the hands of people with less liberal views, like religious
> fundamentalists (as JMS referred to with the terrorist nuking of San
> Diego).

Specifically Islamic fundamentalists.  Not all fundamentalists are created
equal, nor should they be equated without making a case for it.

The poster boy for this is Iran, the country that enlightened and liberal
Europe sold the means to aquire nukes in the first place.  Now europe tries 
vainly to keep Iran from using the uranium-refining machines europe sold 
them to refine uranium.

I swear sometimes, I think Marx was right.  "The last capitalist to be hung
will be the rope salesman"  When I look at these kinds of european business
decisions, I can see where the thought comes from.


> The Drakh couldn't build a Shadow planetkiller but yet they
> were quite prepared to use one. In much the same way, a culture of
> religious fundamentalists could never invent a nuclear weapon because
> they lack the scientific framework necessary to understand how to
> create one, but yet they can still use such a weapon after it's been
> invented by other people with superior scientific knowledge.

Iran is learning how to build its own "planet-killer".  The knowledge is out
there, unlike the knowledge behind a lot of Shadow tech.  The Iraninas are
not simply using something built by someone else as the Drakh were.  Giving
a nuke to Hezbollah or al-Queda would be the equivalent of the drakh
situation.  These groups could never build one, but they can operate one
that they are given.


> To get back to your query, there may of course be more to it, but I'd
> be surprised if the factors I've mentioned don't play at least some
> role in why there is a bit more prejudice towards homosexuality in the
> US than in many other Western countries.

I dont disagree, and I see the primary player as time-honored discomfort or
prejudice.  Everything else we've talked about are minor contributing
factors at best.  The largest of the bunch being the public conduct of gays
as a definable group and the conduct assigned to them in the media.


-- 
John Trauger,
Vorlonagent

"Methane martini.
Shaken, not stirred."

"Spirituality without science has no mind.

Science without spirituality has no heart."

-Methuselah Jones
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)